Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for operating an aircraft with an unapproved fuel system in violation of 49 U.S.C. 46306(b)(9). The court rejected defendant's contention that the term "operates an aircraft" covers actions during or imminent to flight. The court held that both the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations — and clarified through the decisions of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the National Transportation Safety Board — that the term "operate" encompasses the refueling of an aircraft for the purpose of flight. In this case, defendant started the engine of the aircraft and taxied to a maintenance hangar where he refueled the aircraft to prepare for a flight the next day. Therefore, defendant operated the aircraft within the meaning of section 46306(b)(9) when he started, taxied, and fueled the aircraft in preparation for the first of his flights on the voyage to Paraguay. View "United States v. St. Amour" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for operating an aircraft with an unapproved fuel system in violation of 49 U.S.C. 46306(b)(9). The court rejected defendant's contention that the term "operates an aircraft" covers actions during or imminent to flight. The court held that both the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations — and clarified through the decisions of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the National Transportation Safety Board — that the term "operate" encompasses the refueling of an aircraft for the purpose of flight. In this case, defendant started the engine of the aircraft and taxied to a maintenance hangar where he refueled the aircraft to prepare for a flight the next day. Therefore, defendant operated the aircraft within the meaning of section 46306(b)(9) when he started, taxied, and fueled the aircraft in preparation for the first of his flights on the voyage to Paraguay. View "United States v. St. Amour" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that the Supreme Court of Georgia reasonably concluded that petitioner's attorneys were not deficient for failing to uncover mitigating evidence from petitioner's childhood. The court also held that the state court reasonably concluded that the attorneys' failure to hire an independent crime-scene expert to corroborate petitioner's account of the murders did not prejudice him. View "Morrow v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit sua sponte vacated its prior published opinion and substituted the following revised opinion.The court affirmed defendant's convictions for possessing a firearm and ammunition while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). The court held that textual support, prior precedent, congressional acquiescence, and analogous common law all supported the conclusion that there was no mens rea requirement with respect to the status element of section 922(g). Therefore, the district court did not err wen it gave the jury instruction stating that the government was not required to prove that defendant knew he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States. The court also held that the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States was an alien whose presence in the Untied States was forbidden or not authorized by law. View "United States v. Rehaif" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that the totality of the circumstances of the investigatory stop supported the constitutionality of the pat down and thus the pat down did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. However, the court held that, on the facts here, the presence of a single round of ammunition—without facts supporting the presence, or reasonable expectation of the presence, of a firearm—was insufficient to justify the seizure of the bullet and the holster from defendant's pocket. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Jonson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted in 1986 of three counts of malice murder and set for execution on March 15, 2018, sought permission to file a second habeas petition and a stay of execution, seeking to present claims that his execution would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the state destroyed evidence in connection with a post-conviction DNA test of vaginal washings from one body and because he is actually innocent. The Muscogee County Superior Court denied Petitioner’s motion; the Georgia Supreme Court denied review. The Eleventh Circuit denied relief. The court declined to draw the adverse inference against the state that the DNA evidence exculpates the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the state contaminated the sample in bad faith. The testimony at the evidentiary hearing demonstrated that the sample was contaminated with a specially used quality control sample, which was handled by another scientist who used shared the same lab area. Petitioner’s contamination claim is not based on an event that occurred during Petitioner’s prosecution for the murders. Petitioner’s claim that he is actually innocent of the murder, has been barred by the Supreme Court: Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding. View "In re: Carlton" on Justia Law

In 1995, Austin, with his two-year-old son in his car, was using a payphone when Welch approached and put a gun at Austin’s side. A struggle ensued. Welch escaped with Austin ’s car, which was recovered nearby (Austin’s money was gone); his son was found wandering the streets. Austin's gunshot wound resulted in his castration. Welch, on parole, later fired shots at a District Attorney Investigator, fled, and was arrested. His bag contained stolen firearms and jewelry. Welch confessed to shooting Austin. He was charged with conspiracy to commit carjacking, carjacking, using a firearm during a crime of violence, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of stolen firearms. Welch pleaded guilty without an agreement. Welch’s guidelines range was 188-235 months, reflecting a 15-year Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement, based on Alabama convictions for first-degree robbery and first-degree assault. The Eleventh Circuit rejected his pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A), to consider a successive motion to vacate or correct his life sentence. The motion was based on a new, retroactive, rule of law: the Supreme Court's "Johnson" holding that ACCA’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. The court applied the modified categorical approach to Alabama’s first-degree assault statute and examined Welch ’s indictments. The least of the acts criminalized by the statute includes the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person, as required by ACCA’s elements clause. View "In Re: Welch" on Justia Law

Vergara returned to Tampa, on a cruise ship from Cozumel, Mexico with three cell phones. Customs Officer Ragan searched his luggage and asked Vergara to turn a phone on and then looked through the phone for about five minutes. Ragan found a video of two topless female minors and called DHS investigators, who decided to have all three phones forensically examined. A forensic examination of two phones conducted that day revealed more than 100 images and videos, “the production of which involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” The phones were not damaged. Charged under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(1), (b)(1) and 2252(a)(4)(B), (b)(2), Vergara unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence. The court Vergara’s argument that the Supreme Court’s 2014 holding, Riley v. California, required the agents to obtain a warrant before conducting the forensic search. Vergara was sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment followed by supervision for life. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The forensic searches occurred at the border, not as searches incident to arrest. Border searches never require a warrant or probable cause but, at most, require reasonable suspicion. Vergara has not argued that the agents lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a forensic search of his phones. View "United States v. Vergara" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA's denial of cancellation of removal. In this case, petitioner satisfied the third requirement of eligibility for cancellation of removal where the Florida statute under which petitioner had been convicted, trafficking in cocaine, was neither divisible nor had a categorical match in the Controlled Substance Act (CSA). Therefore, the court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Francisco v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant Skillern and Nelson's convictions for mail fraud, wire fraud, and associated conspiracies. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their efforts to peddle non-existent gold to the public through their company, Own Gold LLC. In this case, Skillern alleged that the district court deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel when, just before an overnight recess that occurred while Skillern was on the stand, the district court granted his lawyer's request to speak to him "about matters other than his testimony." The court held that the district court did not commit constitutional error in light of the court's en banc decision in Crutchfield v. Wainwright, 803 F.2d 1103 (11th Cir. 1986), because the record did not reflect that Skillern (or his lawyer) actually wanted or planned to discuss his testimony during the recess. The court rejected defendants' remaining contentions. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law